Quote: Nage-te - throwingAnother cornerstone of jujutsu is its throwing techniques. Many systems have throwing, but these tend to be more like quick takedowns or dumps. Jujutsu is again famous for astonishingly powerful throws and the intent of many of them is to kill a fully armored opponent. I am quite convinced they would do this or at the least severely disable one. As such, we have a strong emphasis on falling (see ukemi-te) and safety in general. Generally, one throws only when the opponent is in position for this and to avoid being taken to the ground. This is summed up in the statement that we tend to throw to avoid ground-fighting.

I can potentially see serious injury from certain throws, and I can definately see throws as a way to avoid grappling, but killing? I dunno.

Go to the strength forum. Look up the profile for Cownose (regular poster on that forum). Look at the video clip that he has as his signature. Throws have the potential to be lethal- doesnt take much to break the neck/fracture the skull. As for being able to use them to kill intentionaly, the only guarantee is if you throw your victim into a wood chipper

Don't let it get to you. This is another case of someone putting out information and not knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Yoroi kumi uchi, the method of engaging another armoured individual while wearing armour ones self, was indeed intended to get another person down, but only so that they could be held and then dispatched with a knife. The throw was not, and most probably could not kill a person in and of itself.

Later the introduction of yawara techniques was with an eye towards restraining without the intent of killing. Not that you could NOT kill someone with a throw now that folks weren't wearing armour, but the intention had shifted from lethality to restraint. Read Draeger for the more accurate information. This sounds like another case where somebody put his mouth in gear before engaging his brain. FWIW.

Quote:the only guarantee is if you throw your victim into a wood chipper

Nope, could throw them off of something from a great height, throw them in front of a moving train/bus/truck, etc.

Or all at once? Throw them off a building onto a truck with a running woodchipper....which then explodes!

...Then use a weather changing device to cause a tornado and hail the size of cars....

Glad- Why would full armor help someone being thrown? I can think of only two reasons; it's hard to throw heavy things well and the helmet protects your skull. That still doesn't account for the spine though, which wouldn't at all be helped by the extra weight.

Upper body armor is fairly rigid, and allows for little bending or twisting, certainly enough to provide some spinal protection. The helmets protect not only the head, but the neck. They fit closely to the shoulder, and often flair out to the sides to provide more protection against side impacts to the head, and to prevent weapons from entering the gap between the shoulder and helmet. While this would also protect the upper spine/neck, I don't think that it would be enough to protect against a determined Jujitsuka from breaking the neck. I think that Cord's suggestion is correct here, it is not the throw by itself that is intended to be fatal, but a simultaneous neck break using the weight of an airborne armored victim, complete with hand holds on his head, that could prove fatal.

-CoO

_________________________
Dignity does not come in possessing honors, but in deserving them. - Aristotle

That throws have the potential to break, maim or perhaps even kill is simply applied physics. But the training to use them consitently that way in extremely stressed conditions is very complex.

For safety reasons (especially to keep the less skilled from messing with things that they would only do wrong, like kill somebody in practice by mistake) many of these techniques, or more likely approaces to technique execution, have been bred out of most arts.

For one thing there is little rational reason to assume in unarmed combat the response you really want is to destroy someone, and very few today teach such techniques for other purposes.

The issue of developing such against old style armoured outfits was just reality, battle field conditions, people trying to destroy yout too, etc. Those throws were not attacking the armour.

I'm not going to discuss this futher becase I don't intend to give anyone ideas, but the principle are basic physics and taking the time to find a MD who is willing to explain the body weakness to be exploited.

And of course finding a lot of very willing partners.

Even if you understnad the concept, the ability to do this when stressed is incredibly high.

Quote:Glad- Why would full armor help someone being thrown? I can think of only two reasons; it's hard to throw heavy things well and the helmet protects your skull. That still doesn't account for the spine though, which wouldn't at all be helped by the extra weight.

Curious to hear why you'd say that.

"Owl" beat me to it. The literature supports two ways of looking at this. One is the structural protection that being inside of armour might provide in a fall. Owl has pretty much touched all of those bases. The other part is that in grappling in armour its hard to do much more than unbalance and topple, though I will agree one could probably get a sweep or reap in there somewhere---MAYBE a gross kind of hip throw--MAYBE. But as much protection that armour might give in fall, and as much trouble as it might be inhibiting the movements of your assailant, once you are down its no fun trying to get back up again and that was the whole point of this sort of tussling. Get the guy on the ground and work it to where you could stabilize him with one hand and knife him with the other.